Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds default ordering and that status/priority names are localized to the GLPI user's language, but says nothing about permissions, result volume, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the default sort and the notable returned fields are stated immediately. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all six optional parameters are documented in-schema. For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to the search/list alternatives is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with four enum-constrained parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the default sort ('most recently updated first') and the dropdown-name expansion, adding little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List change management items') and adds the default ordering and the enriched name fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings listing tickets or problems by resource, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says nothing about when to use this versus glpi_search, glpi_get_change (single item), or the change follow-up/task list tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource, with no conditions or exclusions offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.